SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J. --- We have heard Mr Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, learned A.S.C: for the petitioner. His contention is that the High Court has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as it charge/levying further tax and such could have been done only if Section 3 of Sindh Sales Tax Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") had specifically included the provision, of Section 3(1A) of-the Act.
He further submitted that such observation is absolutely contrary to the principles of Interpretation of Statutes according to which when a reference is made to a particular section then all parts thereof, that is to say sub-sections, clauses, provisos and ' explanations are included therein and it is not the requirement of law that each of them should be specifically mentioned. He also, submitted that the High Court fell in error in holding that., the view/observation made by it was supported by five previous decisions and submitted that all of them were distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The contentions advanced require thorough examination. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted inter alia for examination of the above questions and any other allied or connected issue which may be found necessary to be considered at the time of final hearing office is derected to prepare the paper book on the present record with liberty to the parties to file further/additional documents on their behalf, if so desired.